Video: Dick Cheney rips Obama on the war

posted at 8:48 am on October 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Via Power Line, the full video to the speech that Allahpundit quoted last night — and it’s as good as it is long. George Bush may want to allow the spotlight to fade from Crawford, but after a short spell of silence, the former VP has returned to engagement on the war. Cheney blasts Obama’s “dithering” on the war in Afghanistan and his abrupt betrayals of allies in eastern Europe:

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

In other words, Cheney won’t sit quietly while Obama shifts blame for his own lack of decisiveness onto Bush and Cheney. The notion is risible anyway. Obama campaigned for two years on the promise to fight a more robust counterinsurgency strategy, in large part to dispel the notion that he was an anti-war pacifist. He reaffirmed that decision repeatedly this year, most recently by appointing Ge. Stanley McChrystal, the Army’s leading COIN expert, to command in Afghanistan. Now that McChrystal has requested the resources that comes with COIN, suddenly it’s all Bush’s fault.

Cheney also rips Obama on eastern Europe:

[A]mong my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Now, of course, we call the above “smart power,” only that has to remain in quotes to capture the irony.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I don’t think the Iran-Iraq war dead “count” but, nonetheless, an interesting and persuasive post. Thanks.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I think that if you’re going to count violent deaths from the current Iraq War it’s only fair to count deaths from a war that Saddam waged.

I believe we are losing more people in our liberal run cities like Chicago,LA,and New York than in Iraq.

Baxter Greene on October 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

This is true. I was shocked when someone posted a link to some obscure blog months ago and I started doing the math. The violent death rate for Chicago was something like 6 times higher than the average violent death rate in Iraq.

Hardly anyone ever talks about these numbers, or even knows about them. One of the reasons why I like bringing them up to commenters whenever the situation warrants.

Bleedsblue, was Kerry’s plan to return Iraq back to the Saddamites? Is this your plan now? Please answer quickly I have to go to work soon. What leader do you want in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you prefer dictators in those nations as well as here? Please explain.

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Iraqi leaders that the country was on the right track.

“I think in Iraq there will always be political conflicts, there will always be, as in any society, sides drawn between different factions, but I really believe Iraq as a whole is on the right track,” she said, citing “overwhelming evidence” of “really impressive” progress.

Speaking to GIs in one of Saddam Hussein’s old palaces, Mr. Obama ticked off America’s accomplishments in Iraq: “From getting rid of Saddam, to reducing violence, to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections — you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement.”

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

But…But…But…super smart bleeds blue said it was a failure.

That’s okay,Bleeds blue has company in the Berkeley bubble he exists in:

Senator Reid On Iraq: “This War Is Lost”
Democratic Majority Leader Says Troop Buildup Is Not Working

I don’t think the Iran-Iraq war dead “count” but, nonetheless, an interesting and persuasive post. Thanks.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Additionally, even subtracting these deaths you still get an average of almost 35 violent deaths every day during Saddam’s 24 years in power. Those numbers, by themselves, are close to the current Iraq War death rates, where our enemy intentionally targets civilians in mass casualty attacks.

Whatever you think of Bush, Iraq under Saddam was not exactly Cheeseburger in Paradise.

Lets see. Someone lights a house on fire. Five years later they show up with a hose. Three years after that, with the house only half burned down instead of completely destroyed, he declares victory.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 9:38 AM

That details fairly accurately the reality of the 2nd World War. Large swaths of Europe were bombed to the point of uninhabitability, the economy of several European nations were in ruins or dire straits. Japan’s cities had been burned to the ground (the first firebombing of Tokyo practically destroyed the city and killed 80,000 people) and their economy was non-existant.

Tell me, was the 2nd World War a successful war of necessity or a useless war of Choice FDR got us involved in?

This also details the reality of of the American Civil War. large swaths of the South had been ruined, infrastructure had been destroyed. The economy of the South was gone and the North was teetering. It was the bloodiest conflict this Nation has ever fought.

Tell me, was the American Civil War a succesful war of necessity war or merely a War of Choice that Lincoln got us involved in?

Liberals have no place in policy discussions relating to war. Their idea of war and the history of war have never met.

Can you please name a war that was run smoothly? I know Revolutionary war, War of 1812, WWII and the Civil war had many issues that we had to slog through.

WashJeff on October 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Though, in defense of the generals and presidents involved in those wars, we didn’t choose them,

We didn’t? What was that whole Declaration of Independence thing about then?

we didn’t enter them on false pretenses,

“Remember the Maine!”

we didn’t have a year to plan the wars, we didn’t have overwhelming technical advantages (rag-tag colonies versus world’s greatest empire) and we won them all faster than Iraq.

If you are claiming that the Iraq war isn’t over because we still have troops there, may I remind you that after the Civil War the south was occupied by US troops until 1877. So the Civil War lasted from 1861 until 1877. Sixteen years vs six. And we lost the War of 1812, at least from a military standpoint. We wanted Canada (Halliburton was going to make a bundle creating an oil pipeline from Alaska to the U.S. via Canada.) The British just let us claim victory so they could concentrate on defeating Napolean.

This is true. I was shocked when someone posted a link to some obscure blog months ago and I started doing the math. The violent death rate for Chicago was something like 6 times higher than the average violent death rate in Iraq.

So they were all just incompetent, not dishonest.
Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM

No, just mouthing off and making assessments without any factual data to back it up is incompetent, something you apparently are well versed in.

They(democrats/Republicans/UN/France/Germany/Britain) were all making decisions based on the intel they had in front of them.

Anyone who knows about intelligence knows that they are assessments and based on what the highest probability is of something.

When the world’s intelligence agencies along with democrats and Republicans come to a consensus about an issue
(like they did concerning Saddam’s WMD/al-qaeda ties) that is about the most you can hope for before making a decision.

Saddam said himself during his captivity that he never thought Bush would invade,but instead lob missiles like Clinton did.
He stated he wanted to wait it out,then wait out the UN weapons inspectors and then reconstitute his WMD stockpile(that the Duelfer report and NY times stated he still possessed the dual use machinery for against UN sanctions and the surrender agreement to the US from the first Gulf war) with the billions he made off of oil for food scam and weapons trade.
He also wanted to give Iran the impression that he still possessed WMD.

Instead Bush called his bluff and now he is dead and Iraq is free.

This is the route Bush took and received a large amount of bi-partisan support for it with the vote to eliminate Saddam.

It was only after things got tough and the democrats saw a political opportunity that they proceeded to tell everyone that “big ol dumb Bush tricked all of us super smart liberals into voting for war”.

democrats sold out this country and stabbed our troops in the back for the pursuit of Congressional seats and the White House.

So tell us Bleeds Blue ….How’s that impeachment coming.

Democrats have had control since 06 and yet no charges against the big bad war criminal Bush.

Kind of blows a whole in the “Bush lied”,,”Bush is a war criminal” drivel from the “smart ones”.

Cheney’s blowing smoke to obscure his failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 8:51 AM

The intellectual and moral dishonesty displayed by Dick Cheney last night is simply breathtaking. Giving them credit for no attacks and giving Obama room to make his own decision (which you won’t, but) here is what the Cheney-Bush administration gave us: a failed war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq based either on dishonesty or incompetence, that was bungled badly for many years at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. There is simply no way around that.

I can understand criticisms of the Obama effort. But please, don’t tell me that Dick “three deferments” Cheney knows a thing about winning wars because he does not.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM

I love how you guys can mention the words “integrity” and “Cheney” in the same sentence with apparently no irony whatsoever.
I think there’s a lot of things to admire about Dick Cheney as well – his integrity is not one of those things.
Proud Rino on October 22, 2009 at 9:09 AM
No. It is not. Morality is not relative to your situations. You either behave morally or you do not. The fact that you think that the current administration has less integrity than the previous administration does not resolve them of their sins.
Moral relativism is and always will be disgraceful. How’s that working out for you?
Proud Rino on October 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM
you had eight years to send more troops you classless wanker.
sesquipedalian on October 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM

……………
I can provide more if you’re interested, or you could just bother to do a little research yourself, since, apparently, you’ve been asleep since 2001.
Proud Rino on October 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Must I open the schoolhouse for strategy again, children?

Mr. Cheney is indeed a master of military strategy, even if simply for the fact that he was in charge of the Dept of Defense for Desert Storm. The liberation of Kuwait in 1991 was indeed a purely military operation, approved and supervised by Mr. Cheney and the Generals who worked directly for HIM. And the War against Radical Islam will only be won by going on offense against those who harbor terrorists wherever they are found, and changing Islam from without, or from within. Islam will not change without stress. And the perfect place to apply that stress is thru Iraq, and the example of Integrity and Justice provided by American Soldiers on the ground in the enemy’s own yard.

You may question his integrity in any way you wish, but he has been correct in almost every way regarding Afghanistan, Iraq, and Terrorist Intelligence Gathering operations. The only incorrect assertion I can recall him making in the last 8 years was that the insurgents were on their last legs, and that WMD would be found in Iraq. Neither of these mistakes invalidates his handling of the national security strategy of the United States, or the fact that a War in Iraq was won despite the best efforts of Dhimmicrats, so-called journalists, and fifth columnists for socialism and Communism in America to undermine the morale of the country and the troops, provide aid and comfort to our enemies, and to insist that our leadership was filled with incompetence and “lied our way into war”.

It is demonstrably true that none of these assertions is correct. WMD programs WERE found in Iraq after the invasion. Over 550 chemical munitions WERE found and destroyed in Iraq AFTER the invasion was complete. At least two chemical shells were used in IEDs against our troops. Significant biological strains of diseases WERE found in Iraq in Special Republican Guard labs, and the intention to re-culture these strains using discovered biological feedstock and growth materials WAS demonstrated, all in the Duelfer Report.

You must think no one in America has a memory beyond 2008. I remember the entire war very well, thank you. In 2002, there was essentially no organized resistance in Afghanistan. It continued to quietly continue nation building for the next two years till 2005. In 2003 and 2004 in Iraq there was insignificant enemy action until after Saddam’s capture in February 2004. Attacks began to escalate only after the insurgency under al Qaida took root in Fallujah. In 2005, Iraq began to escalate with the number of attacks and troop deaths increasing. The worst of the Iraq War occurred in 2006 and 2007 following the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra Feb 23, 2006. The sole reason behind his action was to drive a wedge between the Shia and Sunnis and to ignite and trigger a sectarian war in Iraq, a civil war, which the Surge in 2007 suppressed and finally eliminated in 2008. Iraq has been quiet throughout 2009 with the trend steadily and inexorably decreasing in violence. Radical Islam was defeated in Iraq.

During the period when Iraq was increasing in violence, in 2005, violence began to rise in Afghanistan, although far below the violence in Iraq. It is known that Afghanistan had to suffer from 2006 to 2009 because of the number of troops required to pacify Iraq while holding in Afghanistan. Neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney indicated or promised this would be anything less than what the results were to present day. Iraq has now been pacified. The Bush administration addressed shifting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as the violence ebbed and which remains on hold from January 2009 till present, even though the plans to shift these resources have been in place since 4th QTR 2008.

A complete listing of the casualties involved in the two wars can be found here. None of these casualties was caused by the decision to invade Iraq, but by the decision of Saddam Hussein to defy 17 UN resolutions requiring him to account for his WMD stockpiles, which he never did, and by bin Ladin’s decision to begin a war he thought would be over in a year because Americans would not fight. The Duelfer Report delineates the items which WERE found as a result of US military action in Iraq.

Bin Ladin remains incorrect in his views, and the radical Islamic world’s view, that Americans will not fight, and have no will power to win. Only Mr. Obama, and people like Breeds Blue, Proud Rino, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can lose the war in Afghanistan. They can only lose it by giving up, undermining the country’s will to fight, and lying about who has more integrity in war, than whom, which they have been doing diligently for the last 4 years. This is without doubt aiding and abetting our enemies, from within the country. However, as it has been pointed out, morality is not relative to whom is in the White House. It is either correct to oppose the unjustified and illegal deaths of American citizens on 9-11, and the illegal actions of Saddam Hussein in pursuit of WMD, ………….. or you’re a Dhimmicrat, and all is forgiven.

I am availbel to school the ignorant tomorrow upon request. Otherwise, my President requires that I work twice as hard so I can pay both my taxes and yours next year, and I am attempting to do my duty there.

As a matter of fact Operation Linebacker, the intensified bombing of North Vietnam, is what brought the Vietnam War to its close. The North Vietnamese were ready to capitulate if the bombing had continued, and were only brought to the peace talks by its inception. Bombing worked quite well, indeed, for the United States, in Vietnam. It was Democrat Party treachery in the removal of our foreign military aid to Vietnam and removal of guarantees to support the South Vietnamese Army with more weapons and air support that allowed the North Vietnamese to conquer South Vietnam 3 yrs later. And today? The South lives in squalor and poverty, and continues to suffer the re-education and persecution of tribes that helped Americans throughout the last 35 yrs. 200,000 South Vietnamese citizens were imprisoned, tortured or killed in concentration camps for 4 years after the war

Cheney and Bibi demonstrate what real leadership is, agree with them or not it’s something you can’t fake with adulating news coverage. I’m so glad he said what he did it needed saying and it was great!!

Thanks. I don’t even really consider Bleeds Blue to be a troll (half-troll, I suppose). He’s usually right on the verge of making good points, so I’m holding out hope that we can pull him towards common sense eventually. Proud Rino’s totally hopeless.

I’ve served under both President Bush and President obamo in Afghanistan.

It’s clear that obama doesn’t have a clue. Additionally his entire administration and liberals in general know nothing of war. He fired a theater commander which down here in the trenches, makes us nervous and frankly, demoralized.

He changed the rules of engagement to the point where we’re questioning whether we should engage or not. It’s taking an inordinate amount of time to get clearances to fire. We’re required to observe all indirect fire. We’re required to survey anywhere a bomb is dropped even if it’s in an area that might be under enemy control. Every bomb, really Mr. obama? (The reason we drop bombs is to destroy targets where we don’t want to send ground troops. Silly rule huh?) The result is we’re too cautious about calling for close air support. And the fact that this man has taken nearly three months and still hasn’t made a decision on whether to send 40,000 for soldiers as the CinC recommended in his report (that obama had to have had at least 4 months ago in order to leak the details to the press the way he did) means he is absolutely lost in the decision making process and failing miserably.

Now Bleeds Blue, you can go on about him taking years to make as a decision as we “bleed red” here. You can shill for him like a good sycophant and liberal druid of Dear Ones. But the fact of the matter is that if it were a military vote here ten months after he became the CinC; it would be a landslide victory for whoever the other side put up. This is his war now.

The Bush Administration no more took its eyes off Afghanistan that Roosevelt did Europe when Germany advanced into the Ardennes with what became the Battle of the Bulge. We’re fighting two theaters. Each one has been affected by Iranian influence and from other countries sending foreign fighters. A big piece of the increase in activity here in Afghanistan can be directly attributed to the Iranian shifting support to Afghanistan after they saw that Iraq had stabilized.

I sit here typing thinking one, I banned myself and shouldn’t even be submitting comments and two, why do I waste my time arguing with obama followers who simply can’t be told anything else. But…the statement you made about him taking years and that being okay with you means to me that you’d preserve the image of a president over the welfare of your men and women in the service who are engaged in war. That you see these failings and have no understanding of the consequences to us in the field. And that you liberals still (in charge) can’t leave politics behind when you pass our shores and we need to present a united front to our enemies.

We losing a lot of people here now and it’s not because of President Bush. It’s because of obama and you who voted for him.

Hawkdriver, please know that you and the rest of our forces are aprreciated and loved by the overwhelming majority of the American people. You remain in our thoughts and prayers and we’re glad whenever you can find time to post. Stay safe and know we’ve got your back, bro.

Now Bleeds Blue, you can go on about him taking years to make as a decision as we “bleed red” here. You can shill for him like a good sycophant and liberal druid of Dear Ones. But the fact of the matter is that if it were a military vote here ten months after he became the CinC; it would be a landslide victory for whoever the other side put up. This is his war now.

I knew this was you, before I scrolled down to see the commenter…
Well said, as usual, and from a voice of experience. Hence the reason Obambi makes sure that we don’t count military votes in elections…

You were just given the biggest “sit down kid” I have read on here. I mean you and your other boyfriends in the dorm room with you were just intellectually sodomized. Sucks not being as intelligent and informed as your professor claims you are, huh?

A Man among Men who deserves to be heard, nay shouted, and paraded around so that ALL may hear what he has to say.

Go read this post. THIS is the result of a p*ssy in the Presidency. Men bleeding red and suffering unnecessarily because a Coward cannot make a decision.

Presidential Leadership exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To make DECISIONS for our country.

Failure to make them demonstrates a lack of Leadership, is the definition of Cowardice in war,and causes the needless deaths of Men in combat. I demand support for our Men and Women in combat from this President.

Morally wrong: To liberate a country from tyranny and guide it into the light of govrenment at the consent of the Governed, to try and execute the previous tyrants and prosecute a war against nothing less than criminals guilty of crimes against humanity.

That’s almost as good when Bush and Cheney attacked MSNBC for their slanted reporting, when they singled out MSNBC and went on all the talk shows attacking them, and then Bush refusing to talk to CBS after the Dan Rather fiasco…wait a minute, I they were running a country and fighting a war, they didn’t have time for that petty stuff….

Cheney’s deferrments were not made up deferrments. Four came from not willing to put off college for his country and the fifth came from being a husband and a father.
Initially he was not called up because the SSS was calling older men first.

Whenever I see Cheney bulldozing the intellectual and ethical lightweights in DC I’m reminded of Mike Myer’s Sinatra impersonations. Substitute Rahm Emanuel for Billy Idol and a code pinker for Sinead O’Connor and you’ve got a perfect exchange over the Afghanistan impasse.

Frank Sinatra: Of course he is, you brownnoses. Look at you, you’re just swimming in my wake. Issue number three: [ points to Sinead ] This bald chick – what’s with her head? Let’s start with the chick. What gives, cue ball? I’m looking at you, I’m thinking: fourteen in the side pocket!

Sinead O’Connor: I can’t believe you’re talking about my hair with all the bloody starvation and suffering in the world right now.

Frank Sinatra: I’ll tell you what you better understand! Next time you see Old Glory riding up that pole, you better sing that anthem, darling! You’re lucky you’re a chick, or you’d be nothing but a stain on the road and a crewcut. Our founding fathers went to the mat for you, baby!

…

Billy Idol: I think you’re a bloody, stupid old fart!

Frank Sinatra: You’re all talk, blondie! You want a piece of me? I’m right here!

Billy Idol: Don’t provoke me, old man.

Frank Sinatra: You don’t scare me. I’ve got chunks of guys like you in my stool!

Though, in defense of the generals and presidents involved in those wars, we didn’t choose them, we didn’t enter them on false pretenses, we didn’t have a year to plan the wars, we didn’t have overwhelming technical advantages (rag-tag colonies versus world’s greatest empire) and we won them all faster than Iraq.

I don’t think the Army War College will be inviting Cheney to lecture on strategy anytime soon. Nor should we listen to him, either.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM

1) The war in Iraq was not entered under false pretenses, unless you count the liars who keep screaming “Bush Lied!!!!” regardless of evidence.
2) The war in Iraq was over in a very short time, right at the point when Bush declared an end to major combat operations. You would remember it as the time he claimed “Mission Accomplished,” but all he claimed was that major combat operations had ended. What was left from then on was the occupation.

Maybe you expected chocolate unicorns and rainbows. I expected pretty much what happened: we won the fighting quickly, but the occupation stretched out over years.

So no, we didn’t win those wars faster than Iraq. Comparing occupation with combat is apples and oranges. In fact, the Revolution, and War of 1812 had no occupation. The Civil War had the Reconstruction, which lasted at least a decade or two. And we were occupying Germany for years after World War 2.

You completely mangled this comparison, but I seriously doubt you have the honesty to admit it

In the real world, over 90% of Democrats said in 1998 that Iraq had WMDs. Many of them said the same thing 4 years later when they signed off on “Bush’s War”.

In Leftist-land, none of that ever happened. Despite the fact that all of the Democrats’ words to that effect are readily available online, on BleedsBleu’s ringed planet they were never spoken.

In the real world, Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept. indicted bin Laden in 1998. In Part 4 of that indictment, they specifically cite a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, especially on WMDs.

In Leftist-land, none of that ever happened either. Despite the fact that the entire indictment is freely available online, they refuse to read it.

In the real world, post-liberation captured Iraqi documents prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein actively supported terrorism outside of his country’s borders.

In Leftist land, those documents are false. This despite the fact that the translations were fact-checked for accuracy. In fact, Hot Air’s own Ed Morrisey paid outside translators out of his own pocket to confirm the veracity of one translator, “jveritas”. They both confirmed he was accurate in his translations.

Dick Cheney is once again doing the job that the current Republican leadership should be doing! Dick Cheney should not be the only one speaking this! He is out of power. Where are the Republicans that still hold power??? Where??? My God,, What are they freaking waiting for???

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess they made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

His “military expert” was General Paul Eaton. Of course, Wolfman never told his gullible viewers that this guy was an advisor to Hillary’s campaign, and then did pro-O’bama campaign appearances, something even wiki confirms.

And of course the “panel” said it was “inappropriate” for a former VP to criticize the incumbent. When Wolfie, in a rare moment of sanity, mentioned former VP Algore repeatedly criticizing Bush, they all said what Gore did was “good” but what Cheney did was “bad”.

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess they made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

orange343 on October 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Clinton left his successor the 9/11 attacks. If he had done his job for 8 years instead of getting assorted getalifes in the Oral Office, we would never have had to go into Afghanistan in the first place.

It is outrageous that such a large segment of American society wants to turn against those who have fought and are fighting to protect us from an evil enemy force that seeks to destroy us. Dick Cheney is an honorable man who has served his country well.

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess they made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

At the heart of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for a major surge in troops is the assumption that we are failing in Afghanistan. But are we really? The United States has had one central objective: to deny al-Qaeda the means to reconstitute, to train and to plan major terrorist attacks.This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years.Al-Qaeda is dispersed, on the run and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s.Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks.
Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low.
All this is not an accident but rather a product of the U.S. presence in the region and efforts to disrupt terrorists, track funds, gain intelligence, aid development, help allies and kill enemies.

Ed, I think your wrong about McChrystal. He was the big Counter-Terrorism guy in Iraq. He led special ops teams taking out top Al-Qaeda targets like al-Zarqawi. Counter-Terrorism is VERY DIFFERENT from Counter-Insurgency(COIN).

Petraeus is the guy that wrote the army manual on COIN.

That said, what does it say when the top Special Ops Counter-Terrorism guy comes in and says we need more troops or the mission will fail? If anything, you would think he would support the Biden-style focus on going after the bad guys with drones and special ops. When he instead fully endorses COIN and says we need more troops, I think that makes him that much more believable.

And he has the support of the ultimate COIN commander in Gen. Petraeus.

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess theydemocrat congress made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

orange343 on October 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Oh yes, Obama did turn it around, he took a 400 billion dollar deficit and turned it into a 1.6 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. THE LARGEST DEFOICIT IN OUR NATION’s HISTORY.

Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Bush DESTROYED THE Taliban in weeks. These fools are coming from Iran and other countries while this fool has White House parties every week. Transparancy you can believe in.